The Myth of outrageous new Canon lens prices...

Higgs Boson wrote in post #14369187
there is no mr. burns sitting back in his fat cat chair at canon pressing his fingertips together devising new ways to put it to ya, joe consumer.

I really think there is. Probably a whole exec team. I would bet they did a bunch of calculation and decided they'd make more money selling, less units at a higher price so they kept with the premium price. It's not evil, it's what any company should do - maximize profit while still providing value to the consumer. We all want to do the same to our employers by getting the highest salary possible for the fewest possible hours worked.

tkbslc wrote in post #14369619
I really think there is. Probably a whole exec team. I would bet they did a bunch of calculation and decided they'd make more money selling, less units at a higher price so they kept with the premium price. It's not evil, it's what any company should do - maximize profit while still providing value to the consumer. We all want to do the same to our employers by getting the highest salary possible for the fewest possible hours worked.

I think you and Higgs are saying the same thing only your thinking is a bit more conspiratorial...

1Tanker wrote in post #14367726
What would they do? The concensus here, seems to be that they're charging these prices.. because they HAVE to! That's what a few of us non-sheeple are arguing.. that they charge these prices.. because they can.

You can think of this several different ways, but the bottom line is that Canon (just like any other manufacturer) does not price their products in a vacuum.

If they did, they'd be long extinct because most consumers, especially nowadays, are price sensitive, are armed with a vast breadth of knowledge (called the interwebz and can make a rational decision based on their needs and wants.

Most of them that is.

Hogloff wrote in post #14369563
That is the problem...we all cannot afford Canon's new pricing for their latest generation of gear. Show me anyone who is overjoyed at laying out $7,000 for a 300 f2.8 lens when a year ago you could buy one for half that.

You could also think of the alternative: What if Canon priced the new 300/2.8 at $2k?

What would that do to the brand? It would destroy it just like Chrysler did when they flooded the rental parking lots with their crappy cars because they couldn't sell them.

One cannot emphasize enough how important "Branding" is for a company. And let's be honest, if you can find a better 300/2.8 feel free to buy it and use it at the mount of your choice. For the time being it seems that Canon still makes the best as you can see from all the "whiteness" evidenced at mass photojournalistic events.

Higgs Boson wrote in post #14369187
Just because you don't agree with one group doesn't make you a non-sheep, it just means you roam with a different flock/herd/whatever.

it's all fear of the unknown, everyone's an expert. when you have no information you have to fill the space with SOMEthing, conspiracy, whatever.

no one on this forum knows how canon prices their products, but i will tell you that they price them as high as they can to make the most incremental profit while sustaining the product life cycle as long as they can, when the curve starts to drop, the price can come down a bit until the curve drops a little more and the new version they have been working on since the day the old one came out can now get announced.

there is no mr. burns sitting back in his fat cat chair at canon pressing his fingertips together devising new ways to put it to ya, joe consumer.

damn right they charge what they can, wouldn't you? you going to make just enough to eat balogna at night? what if you never sell another lens tomorrow? no cash reserves to stay afloat since you made a dollar a day? come on. your company's evil profits feed your family. they pay for r&d so they have something to sell tomorrow, not just today.

I'm not saying that they don't deserve to make a profit. Think about this: How many other products have a "lifecycle" of 10..hell, even 20+ years? Most products last a year or two.. maybe three, before they have to be a "new and improved" version, which takes R&D as well as new tooling. Canon is updating lenses that have maintained the same(or basically the same) tooling and R&D for 10+ years... that means that R&D and tooling costs are lonnngggg paid for, and then profit comes from straight manufacturing costs(wages, utilities, warranties, advertising, interest on loans, etc.) and materials. Their ROI is high.. no doubt about it.

Look at when Sony brought out the Playstation; they were selling them..AT A LOSS.. for a long time.

This is different. The Zeiss 15/2.8 is a NEW completely new product.. not an update/refresh. If Zeiss had a 15/2.8 Mk I and brought out a Mk II (at a 50%+ premium) with updated glass, there would be a lot of screaming going on as well.

andrikos wrote in post #14367481
If the competition could produce a 70-200 f/2.8 with supreme AF and IS for a third of the price of the Canon lens, I'm sure Canon would do something about it.

Yes, They'd laugh themselves stupid as the competition went broke.

andrikos wrote in post #14371247
You could also think of the alternative: What if Canon priced the new 300/2.8 at $2k?

What would that do to the brand? It would destroy it just like Chrysler did when they flooded the rental parking lots with their crappy cars because they couldn't sell them.

One cannot emphasize enough how important "Branding" is for a company. And let's be honest, if you can find a better 300/2.8 feel free to buy it and use it at the mount of your choice. For the time being it seems that Canon still makes the best as you can see from all the "whiteness" evidenced at mass photojournalistic events.

Nice to see you are leading the Canon parade through town. Seems like you appreciate paying twice the cost for the new updated lens. After all, we have to keep that Canon high brand name alive. Where do I sign up to this exclusive Canon club...and how many zeros do I add on my check.

Bottom line, Canon's new glass is being priced out of the hands of many photographers at a time when the world economy is hurting. I think they are opening the door to 3rd party glass. We already see a lot of buzz over the new Tammy 24-70 that has IS and great image quality at 1/2 the price of the new Canon zoom. Yes, pro's might buy the Canon, but a large majority of the amateurs will not lay out $2400 when a very comparable lens is available for 1/2 the price.

Hogloff wrote in post #14371720
Nice to see you are leading the Canon parade through town. Seems like you appreciate paying twice the cost for the new updated lens.

Nice of you to attack the poster rather that his content.

You really don't seem to get what is being talked about here so I won't bother trying to "help" you with it.

I do hope the Tamron is excellent, I might buy one if it hits all the right spots, especially price. I not an L fetishist and like most people here I buy lenses based on price/performance ratio. Whether you accept that or not matters none to me.

tkbslc wrote in post #14367355
In my currency:

28mm f2.8 is now $800
24-70 is now over $2000
5D is now $3500
Should I go on?

As I have said, I realize things are not more expensive in Yen, at least not much. But what's that go to do with me? Nothing. I don't get paid in Yen. I can only evaluate what things cost to me and my bank account, which is in dollars. Prices on new products have definitely risen based on what leaves my wallet.

tkbslc wrote in post #14367632
I understand that, and I have said that. I agreed with your approach. But the other conversation is that people are saying we should be happy about it or shut up. I am merely saying that people are justifiably unhappy about it, regardless of cause.

I do agree putting the blame solely on Canon is not fair.

But prices in USD have not risen much either. If you understood my post (below) you would realize comparing the lenses above like the 24-70 II price to current Mark I prices does not make any sense. Even based on what leaves your wallet, prices have gone up very little. Someone mentioned the Playstation so I will use it as an example. In Australia a number of years ago the Playstation 2 was released at around $600. Now, years later, I can go into any electronics store and buy that very same system for $350. When the Playstation 3 was released at $650, was I upset that Sonys 'new pricing stategy' was ridiculous? No. It has risen but not unreasonably so. I would be insane to compare the current $350 Playstation 2 to the new $650 Playstation 3. Would you do that? How is that any different to the 24-70 I and II? I could still buy the Playstation 2 for $350 until it was rolled out, and it was a great price, but the PS3 was better. The 24-70 Mark I was USD$2100 upon release in (2003?), the Mark II is USD$2300 upon release. Can you see why comparing $2300 to $1150 doesn't make any sense?

Now, the second bold part above, that is definitely not what the conversation was and not what I was responding to. I was responding to people saying Canons prices have increased dramatically, ridiculously even, because people are comparing current Mark I to Mark II prices. I am sure I explained it well enough but people a still saying the same thing over and over. I clearly said if the prices aren't worth it to you, fine. I never said you should be happy or shut up about it. Complain all you want. But don't think people were getting the Mark I for $1150 when it was released. You can get the Mark II for $1150 too if you wait for depreciation as the Mark I did over 9 years. Canon could have left the Mark I price at USD$2100 for the past 9 years and you wouldn't be complaining about Canons new pricing scheme for the Mark II at $2300, but that would not be better for any one of us. Many people wish prices were lower. No one has a problem with that. If your unhappy by what needs to leave your wallet for the Mark II, complain as much as you want. What bugged me is people constantly referring to an outrageous price increase based on the Mark I and II difference today, when prices have not increased at all. The Mark I simply depreciated.

Hogloff wrote in post #14369563
That is the problem...we all cannot afford Canon's new pricing for their latest generation of gear. Show me anyone who is overjoyed at laying out $7,000 for a 300 f2.8 lens when a year ago you could buy one for half that.

No one has a problem with you not being overjoyed at current lens prices. But don't continue to believe prices have risen dramatically, rather Mark I lenses have dropped dramatically. Grab yourself a bargain, new or used if necessary.

chantu wrote in post #14367921
These tables by the OP are all well an good, but really ... they're really quite meaningless. Seriously, who is going to look at historical pricing, and say "yep, Canon's new lens pricing is not really 'outrageous" We all look at pricing relative to some reference point. And I say that the reference point is comparing the new lens to the previous generation (Mk I) or verses the competition (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) in TODAY's pricing. I really don't care about the initial rollout pricing 10 years ago because that simply is not relevant. Take for example the 24-70L Mk 1 and 2. The prices delta is about $1000 USD. Is this outrageous?

You are using the wrong reference point. Surely you understand that by now. The initial rollout price of the Mark I lens is completely relevant. I don't know that I can explain it better than my first post. Canons price has not risen $1000 for the Mark II. In Japan or the states. It has risen by exactly 10% over 9 years. Exactly. Outrageous? You are basically complaining that prices have not halved like you wish they had, not about a price increase. Why do you think the Mark II should be $1100, $1200,$1300 whatever, when the Mark I was USD$2100? By all means complain that current lenses are too expensive (which I don't think they are but some may that's fine), but tell me how the 24-70 II is $1000 more than the I. It is not. You only care what comes out of your pocket.. You can buy the Mark I or wait for the II to drop, that doesn't change that prices have not risen outrageously. Not at all AND not to your wallet, the Mark I simply dropped in price, not the other way around.

chantu wrote in post #14367921
The Mk 1 is already pretty dang good. Will the Mk 2 be twice as good? I guessing the Mk 2 will be really good, but not twice as good, so the $1000 price delta is "outrageous" to me. Also, Tamron has just delivered a lens in this space (with VC) so again the price seem too high. --- Just my two cents

After reading all of that the question you should ask, will the Mark II be 10% better than the Mark I, most likely, even accounting for the law of diminishing returns. Probably much better. Will the performance justify an extra $1000 over what you can now get a Mark Imlens for, probably not. Still doesn't mean the Mark II has risen dramatically. The Mark II price has not risen dramatically compared to the Mark I, the Mark I is just an absolute bargain compared to what it was 9 years ago.

Please someone tell me you understand Start complaining that you wish new lenses were cheaper, not that you wish Canon hadn't boosted their prices double.

Andriko's, thanks again This turned into a bit of a hot topic lol.

mattmorgan44 wrote in post #14357909
There are too many mis-guided (nice way of putting it) comments here to quote them all. For everyone saying you don't care what lenses cost 15 years ago, you only care what the difference is between the Mark I and Mark II now, well Canon cares. Canon worked out exactly what profit they would need to make to cover their costs and make a profit and they priced their lenses accordingly. They factored in depreciation. Your argument is that Canon would not be selling the Mark I at a loss right now, so they could price the Mark II the same. That is completely incorrect. If Canon priced the Mark II the same as the Mark I after it has depreciated for 15 years they would go out of business fast. Their profits are not kept secret. If they tried to rip off customers they would quickly lose customers to Nikon.
They work out their costs, profits, factor in depreciation and price their products accordingly. Would they be making money on the current Mark I lenses? Yes. Would that profit be enough to cover all of the costs involved in making that lens, not a chance.

You are also taking retailers prices as Canons prices. And on top of all that many people are complaining that they don't pay in yen they pay in USD. That is a whole other topic on its own. Many, many factors determine the price difference between lenses in USA and Japan. Non of them directly related to Canon. Canon prices have hardly risen if at all. You can not logically compare a deprecated Mark I price to a new Mark II price when Canon factored in depreciation in the first place.

If you don't think the lenses are worth what they cost, don't buy them. It is up to you to decide if the money is worth it to you. But know that they are priced based on what Canon can sell them for whilst making a reasonable profit. Nothing more nothing less. That may be different if they didnt have competitors. And that prices have hardly changed over the current mark I and II offerings. I believe they are worth what they cost (what they cost to make). I could not build my own for less money. Canon can build them cheap now (compared to the decades it would take me to build) and I am happy I have the choice to purchase one..

andrikos wrote in post #14371758
Nice of you to attack the poster rather that his content.

You really don't seem to get what is being talked about here so I won't bother trying to "help" you with it.

I do hope the Tamron is excellent, I might buy one if it hits all the right spots, especially price. I not an L fetishist and like most people here I buy lenses based on price/performance ratio. Whether you accept that or not matters none to me.

I think Hagloff is trolling.

I have pre ordered the Tamron 24-70 and I can't wait for it to arrive! Fingers crossed it is the lens I am hoping for.

Also, I am not a Canon fanboy by any means. If a third party releases a better lens you bet ill buy that instead. Whether its Tamron, Sigma, Zeiss or Nikon? But Canon have been releasing stellar lenses. They are expensive no doubt, but I knew the prices of the Mark I lenses when they were released and prices were just as steep back then. And back then people made much less money than today. I appreciate the time you spent to demonstrate this to other people. Unfortunately it seems some will never grasp the concept

mattmorgan44 wrote in post #14371796
I have pre ordered the Tamron 24-70 and I can't wait for it to arrive! Fingers crossed it is the lens I am hoping for.

Also, I am not a Canon fanboy by any means. If a third party releases a better lens you bet ill buy that instead. Whether its Tamron, Sigma, Zeiss or Nikon? But Canon have been releasing stellar lenses. They are expensive no doubt, but I knew the prices of the Mark I lenses when they were released and prices were just as steep back then. And back then people made much less money than today. I appreciate the time you spent to demonstrate this to other people. Unfortunately it seems some will never grasp the concept

We can have all this academic disscussion about Canon marketing till the "cows come home", but in the end it's how we speak with our pocketbooks that really counts. I noticed that you've ordered the Tamron. It's a good $1000 cheaper than the Mk II. You may have not considered the MK II pricing "outrageous" but Tamron has some obvious appeal. (I, myself, am keeping close tabs on the Tamron.)

I fully understand the OP position on historical pricing. Interesting, but in MY MIND, not relevent. I do appreciate his efforts researching this info .

One thing I don't quite follow is if we are arguing that much of the increase in prices is due to currency shifts and inflation why does that only get applied when a lens is replaced and not gradually over time to older lenses? Why could Canon make money selling a 24-70 Mark 1 at progressively lower prices if that is the case? I understand that some fixed costs are up front but for other products like cars we don't see progressive price reductions followed by a massive price increase when the model is redone; if there's shifts in currency or inflation it gets reflected each year gradually and there's usually a modest increase with a new model.

lungdoc wrote in post #14372246
One thing I don't quite follow is if we are arguing that much of the increase in prices is due to currency shifts and inflation why does that only get applied when a lens is replaced and not gradually over time to older lenses? Why could Canon make money selling a 24-70 Mark 1 at progressively lower prices if that is the case? I understand that some fixed costs are up front but for other products like cars we don't see progressive price reductions followed by a massive price increase when the model is redone; if there's shifts in currency or inflation it gets reflected each year gradually and there's usually a modest increase with a new model.

My example would be European Auto makers (such as BMW, Mercedes etc.) selling in the U.S. market.
They decide on a price for their model's lifetime (3-5 years) while the exchange rate can go either way during those times. I remember when the Euro was especially strong, they were actually losing $$$ on their U.S. sales but made it up with other currency exchanges. These are some of the joys of Global Markets...

Sounds like a self-correcting problem to me.

If it is a problem. This is not at all a new situation--back in the 70s, when I first started buying SLR lenses, the situation was precisely the same.

All this debating, let's look at facts which I gleaned from B&H catalogs (2007, 2011) and old copies of photographic magazines (2003, 2005), and web archives (2002):

2002 24-70mm f/2.8L = 220K Yen ($1656 at 2002 exchange rate) $2100 Canon USA Launch
2003 24-70mm f/2.8L = $1149 B&H
2005 24-70mm f/2.8L = $1349 B&H
2007 24-70mm f/2.8L = $1139 B&H
2011 24-70mm f/2.8L = $1399 B&H
2012 24-70mm f/2.8L = $1399 Canon USA MSRP

2012 24-70mm f/2.8L II = $230K Yen ($1732 at 2012 exchange rate) $2299 Canon USA Launch

So, compared to the 2002 Launch price, the MkII lens is priced very reasonably. What isn't accounted for is the considerable difference between Japan Home Market price vs. CanonUSA price, which is lifted by 27% above (2002) what one would expect from the monentary conversion rate. Perhaps it is to account for smoothing of prices in spite of monetary exchange rate fluctuations. We do observe a considerable drop from MSRP in 2002 to the actual street price in 2003; there are ups and downs in price over the years. It will be interesting to observe the eventual street price of the 24-70mm f/2.8L II over time, to compare.